'Anyways, the problem for Intel is that they are very reluctant to even promote Atom for micro-servers, and it shows from how they talk about it. They have a conflict of interest, because they’d rather sell the much more profitable “bigger” chips. '
#$%$, Otellini himself talked extensively about it both at the Earnings and Bernstein Calls.
'This is why Intel will ultimately lose all markets to ARM (could take a decade or more, though). '
ROFL. There is less than a 1% chance of that happening ... in about a hundred years at current rate of progress if you start from ARM's creation in the 1980s. Looks like someone is trying to find new suckers as ARMH has started deflating back to its real $10 value.
'Because ARM thrives on extremely cheap cores, while for Intel it’s absolutely VITAL for the company’s long term survivability to be able to sell high-margin chips, because that’s how their company is built.'
Not exactly vital, it could aways fall back to being a foundry if a miracle actually happened and nobody wanted x86 processors. High margins are determined by product desirability and efficient manufacturability something Intel has been very good at ever since ARM slinked off to the cheap sockets in the 1990s with its tail between it legs.
'As ARM chips get ever more powerful and “good enough” for most devices (that includes laptops, desktops, in the coming years), that means Intel will need to compete with $20 chips, instead of $200 chips with ARM. Look at their IVB 17W laptop chips right now. They are like $250 a piece right now. That’s absolutely unsustainable for Intel in the long-term. ARM is very close to reaching that performance level (only ~3x behind), and their chips will be an order of magnitude cheaper. '
Absolute #$%$ ! There is a Celeron 867 in a $200 chromebook which is much faster than the A15 in the $250 chromebook and it didn't drop mainstream Core prices by one dollar ! Who is outpricing whom ?!
Statements like the ones above are made by idiots who have not observed the PC industry in action with competitors like AMD who have already tried and failed with the cheaper good enough fallacy to entice customers.
'Intel simply can’t survive in that environment – not in the consumer market at least. They’ll probably manage to survive as a company for a decade or more in supercomputers and whatnot, but it’s only a matter of time before ARM chips get them there, too. In fact Nvidia’s Project Boulder is already oriented towards super-computers, too.'
Keep dreaming ARMH groupies as Intel easily successfully defends its PC legacy base from this lightweight competitor while taking increasing tablet/phone marketshare from ARM.